Every year, the NYPD stops and
frisks tens of thousands of “reasonably suspicious” New Yorkers in order to
prevent crime in the city (and also to meet quota). The majority of the
individuals selected for stop and frisks are African Americans and Hispanics. Recently
the controversial policy has been heavily debated, as stop and frisks have
raised critical concerns about racial profiling. Two issues here relate
specifically to Mill’s Utilitarianism: cost-benefit analysis and greater
happiness principle.
The
intended end of stop and frisk policy is to reduce violence and crime in New
York City. I think it is safe to say that this would promote greater happiness
for most people, and since Mill considered happiness the only end-in-itself, he
would probably agree that this is a moral end. But let us examine the means: interrupting
a person, investigating their business (usually by asking them accusatory
questions), and patting them down. This is clearly an undignified and degrading
experience for someone who gets stopped and frisked. It also probably creates a
lot of emotional discomfort and pain. Does the end justify this mean? It seems
not. Statistics show that stop and frisks have been largely unsuccessful, with
a large percentage (over 89%) resulting in no weaponry or contraband
discovered. Considering the amount of people being stopped and frisked every
year, the amount of crime actually prevented, and the demeaning means by which
NYPD are trying to fight crime, stop and frisk policy appears to be wrong.
Some
people may still believe that stop and frisk policy is worth any crime
prevention. With the small amount of space left to argue for stop and frisks,
let’s consider Mill’s greatest happiness principle. If stop and frisks were
morally right, they would promote more happiness (pleasure) and prevent
unhappiness (pain). But these stop and frisks seem to promote unhappiness and
prevent happiness by individually insulting people who get stopped, and by
reflecting a racist police system. Even though I don’t believe utilitarianism can
be adequately used to justify stop and frisk policy, I do think this issue highlights
a missing element of utilitarianism: human rights. I don’t think this theory of
ethics sufficiently prioritizes individual rights and minority rights.
I'm really glad you brought this up. I think utilitarianism can easily fall under scrutiny when considering "Who exactly makes the decision of what 'the greater good' is?" Slavery, strictly speaking, was definitely an ultimate good for white people, but I don't think anyone would call slaver morally sound. I definitely agree that until human rights violations are taken into consideration that utilitarianism is lacking. However, human rights lingo is definitely more of a universal stance which Mill attempts to avoid.
ReplyDeleteMill does provide a safeguard for human rights, which are grounded in utility and are essential for the well being of the individual. Mill supports the rights of the individual because the rights of the individual are necessary for the security and protection of the public. With the example of the frisking, the individual’s rights are compromised in the name of security for the public. For Mill, I think he would argue that if a few people must suffer in order to benefit the society as a whole then it would be okay. Another issue you raised is that the frisking seems to happen more to certain races, this Mill doesn’t support because for him, all individuals’ happiness is valued equally, meaning the happiness of one race should not hold precedence over another race.
ReplyDeleteI feel like frisking would be considered morally right by Mill, as a greater number of people feel safe due to the frisking, than the number of people who are being frisked. An 11% decrease in crime isn't a small feat, and shouldn't be overlooked just because not everyone who is searched isn't a criminal. However, racial profiling, is a different sort of problem which I don't believe Mill accurately addresses in his philosophy. I don't think he imagined that the minority of the population following Utilitarianism, the unhappy, would all be one race. Frisking due to racial profiling isn't a moral action, but because it sometimes results in positive outcomes that causes the majority to feel more at ease, and because Utilitarianism is a consequential philosophy, I feel like Mill would still justify this as being morally sound.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I wholeheartedly agree that Mill's theory falls short for me when considering individual / minority rights. But that is because it seems very easy to justify stop-and-frisk, racial profiling, etc. when viewed through a utilitarian lens, so I'm just going to play devil's advocate and do that. Essentially, by inconveniencing a minority, one detracts from their happiness, but one can argue (as several political scientists have) that the preventative aspect of stop and frisk searches through deterrence justifies the inconvenience put on a minority of minorities (an inconvenience that is only mildly inconvenient unless the person in question actually IS breaking the law).
ReplyDeleteHannah,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up an important point regarding the issue of priority between the individual and the whole. That is, for which unit does the morally good action come to, and why it would be considered of greater moral worth than another in a hierarchy of actions. For the record, I am of the understanding that your intended point is concerned with racial profiling specifically.
For Mill, the answer lies in the Greatest Happiness principle. In his system, whatever adheres to this principle is morally good, even if it were to result in racial profiling. But if the racial profiling that resulted counteracted the Greatest Happiness Principle, then the act would be considered immoral. Regarding the "Stop and Frisk" example, I think we could all stand to be stopped and frisked in areas where security is harder to ensure. Though it may be annoying, if it stops even one public outbreak of crime then it would seem to be of respectable moral worth.
We must remember that Utilitarianism is not so concerned with the motive. That is, to a certain extent, it does not matter why a particular person is being stopped, it just matters what happens as a result of that halting. If the result is a prevented crime, it is morally good. If the result is not a prevented crime, but a degradation of a race of people, then this would be morally bad as this conflicts with the Greatest Happiness principle.
However, in the situation where we group multiple actions together, I do not think the Greatest Happiness Principle can determine moral worth. Who is to say which group of actions should be considered? All of them? But how could we ever know all of the actions belonging to any relevant group? And who decides what brings more happiness? 100,000 minority individuals stopped and frisked to prevent a single murder? Or a single murder allowed that could have been prevented if 100,000 minority individuals were stopped and frisked? As a side note, when it comes down to it, it is the belief that a way a person looks has influence on the way they will behave that results in racial profiling, not “Stop and Frisk.” These acts are independent, though they can be combined. (The idea that belief is an action and not a motive would be interesting to pursue).
This is not to say that I believe "Stop and Frisk" is morally good or bad. This is just to say that it does not seem Mill's philosophy gives us any concrete way to determine these things. We have to rationally determine these things given his guidelines.
Regarding the rank of actions regarding the individual as juxtaposed with the whole, Mill will always advocate for the majority given that the pleasure pursued is of the same degree. If the pleasure or happiness pursued in each case is of unequal degree, then the one of higher degree will always be pursued.
*Clarifications*
ReplyDeleteWhen I say "combined," I intended "the acts could be completed nearly simultaneously."
When I ask, "Who decides what brings the most happiness?" I mean to highlight that it is not clear whether pleasure ensued in abolishing racial profiling is of greater degree than that pursued in the prevention of a violent crime.
This is a really good argument, and I agree with you, especially regarding the comment that this ethical theory lacks attention to individual rights. I dont believe that Mill would argue that the stop and frisks promote happiness - in the form of safety - and stopping individuals to be frisked definitely discourages happiness. Especially when we consider the low rate of discovering crime thorugh this method, it seems unreasonable that the NYPD would not turn to a more effective way of discovering crime and also getting the public to be happier its promotion of displeasure.
ReplyDeleteI do think that if the Stop and Frisk process actually allowed the greatest amount of happiness spread to the masses it would be okay to carry out. However, with the high rate of unsuccessful searches as displayed by your statistic shows, I do not feel that it is right in any way for them to be continuously carried out. Not only is it overwhelmingly unsuccessful, it also is frequently used in a malicious way to target particular people and seems to be a violation of human rights. How can someone seem suspicious merely by walking down the street in a normal manner? Because it is a violation of our rights, is entirely to subjective to being abused, and the process itself makes the victims feel uncomfortable and often "singled out," I would hardly say that the Stop and Frisks serve for the greater good.
ReplyDelete